Annexing West Bank

[Shusha]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

1) There is no occupation of any State's territory by Israel.

2) The Palestinians can choose to live any way they wish when bordered by other States.

They can hold weekly riots. They can fly firebombs. They can toss some rockets and mortars around. They can try to cross the border with knives and suicide vests. They can even strap those vests to their children.

If they wished to develop an economy, however, I'd suggest they play nice in the sandbox. And take care of their own people as priority with any resources they had.

 

[Shusha]

Annexation is the appropriate term, it is time to quit trying make something through a form of "political correctness".

It not "political correctness", its a legal truth. Israel is not annexing territory. It is laying claim to territory already under her sovereignty. There is absolutely no legal argument to be made that Area C is sovereign territory belonging to any State but Israel.

And using terms like annexation supports the incorrect idea that Israel is stealing someone else's land. Which is just demonizing Israel and minimizing a complicated issue. All Israel is doing is unilaterally setting a boundary which should have been set in negotiations.

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia

The International Court of Justice,[3] the UN General Assembly[4] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel's occupation "an affront to international law."[6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[7] According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than four decades that international law applies to Israel's presence in the West Bank.[8] Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank.[9][10] Officially Israel maintains that the West Bank is disputed territory.[11]

Occupied or Disputed.

Annexation: the act of annexing something or the state of being annexed : the addition of an area or region to a country, state, etc.

I think those terms are accurate. The problem is, there is a concerted effort to "soften" what Israel is doing - not demonize it. It is annexation.

But what is Israel doing? She is NOT taking territory which doesn't belong to her. She is not performing an act of aggression. She is not ending the chances of Palestine to become a state. She is not denying self-determination to the Arab Palestinian people. She is simply making a unilateral move to declare a border. On territory she already controls. What is the big deal?


Also, with respect to language, you looked up "occupied territories" and, entirely unsurprisingly, got a bunch of stuff about occupied territories. Not my point. Look back at the language used in UN documents from 1948 until 2019 and see how the language used to describe the conflict, especially the rights of the Arabs living in Palestine, has changed over time. My point is that the change in language itself is an erosion of Jewish rights, even though legally nothing has changed since 1922 when the Jewish Homeland was reconstituted.

 

[Shusha]

So what has Netanyahu done to support, promote peace or move towards a two state solution?

Compared to who? Abbas? Haniyeh?

I would suppose the question would depend on what you would consider that Israel CAN do to "move toward a two state solution".

Let the March of Return through the fences?
Have open borders with Gaza?
End the blockade?
Restrict all building for everyone in Area C?
Provide more funds for the Martyrs?
Prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount?


What do you want Israel to do that will create the conditions necessary for a two state solution?

 

[Shusha]

That doesn't really address what I said.

Sure it does. You think that if Israel just made the Arabs feel "welcome" that there would be peace. I'm calling bullshit on that.

 

[Shusha]

Consolodating it's hold on the area

Check. Formalizing sovereignty over the territory it already controls.

bringing it under one law and governmental services

Check. So, not apartheid, but equality. Actually better than equality since the Arabs in Israel will end up FAR better off than those stuck in Palestine or Gaza. In any way you could possibly care to measure.

alleviating the severe housing crunch it suffers from

Check. Sure. Bonus payment.

ending any possibility of a two state solution

Not at all. Unless we are discussing Israel exerting control over ALL of Areas A, B and Gaza (which I've already stated is a ridiculous idea and it would be crazy for Israel to do it), taking control of key areas of Area C, or even most of Area C, would not in the slightest prevent an eventual one-more or two-more states solution.

There is nothing inherent in Israel's formalizing its control over territory it already controls which will irrevocably deny Arab Palestinians self-determination. Nothing. All this is nonsense. Its a smokescreen -- deliberately burning tires -- to "poor me" the Arab Palestinians and shift the blame to Israel.[/quote]

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

You seem to be supporting a two-state solution here. So how is creating a border between those two, eventual, states problematic. Isn't it a step in the RIGHT direction?

 

[Shusha]

... when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

What is the difference between a bantustan and a sovereign, independent nation? Serious question. How will Palestine know that it is a State and not a "bantustan"?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

The dictatorships that the Arabs-Moslems currently live in have done quite nicely with their dedicated, exclusive UN sponsored welfare fraud.

What makes you think the Arabs-Moslems want to change that?

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

Maybe for your posts. Muslims do not want peace with Jews or Israel. Period. End of story. To call Israel the villain here is insanity.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I know that we all have heard this claim several hundred times if we heard it once. Most people, sloppy in the way they interpret the Law, condense it to this phrase as written here. But that is not what the International Law actually says.

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

Here is the Law...

“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
SOURCE: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. ••

It does not say that the Occupied Territory cannot be annexed. It says that the Occupying Power cannot use "Annexation" to change the rights of the protected person.

Let's bring this down to the lowest common denominator:

Protected persons → shall not be deprived, → of the benefits of the present Convention → by any annexation → of the occupied territory.
​

This makes it a bit more clear.

I have yet to see any International Law that clearly states that "occupied Territory cannot be annexed." I would appreciate it if, someone who makes this claim, knows that actual citation. Yes, I would be very interested.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

(COMMENT)

How is this part of the question (I'm not sure)?

It takes at least 2 countries to completely cut-off either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

To cut-off the West Bank requires the cooperation with Israel and an overt act on the part of Jordan.

To cut-off the Gaza Strip requires the cooperation with Israel and an overt act on the part of Egypt.

IF Israel is an obstructionist in this manner (cut off from the required resources to develop an economy) THEN so are the cooperating Arab League Members.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention •• Inviolability of Rights said:
“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
SOURCE: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. ••

You really need to read that again.

No change into the institutions or government of the said territory,

No change by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power,

No change by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Of course this applies to the 1948 occupied territory and the 1967 occupied territory.

 

[K9Buck]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

Absolutely.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

Bringing a modern, educated society to the Islamic terrorist enclave of Abbas’istan would certainly help to improve the place.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, ※ I knew there would be some push-back.

In more contemporary times, the Arab Palestinians fail to recognize that:

❖ It is one thing to say you've instituted some form of government that can stand on its own organizational tradecraft.

❖ It is a completely different matter to actually make that declaration a reality.​

It does not matter if one starts in the pre-1947 era, the era between 1948 and 1967, or moving into the remainder occurring into the present; absolutely and completely failed to institute any reasonable system by which a collective group of people was able to effectively exercise executive authority in the territory.
Instead, a "parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented" approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, → constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This is not an agreement between a territory with a government with an occupying force. This was the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank accepting a new form of government.

indent]

Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention •• Inviolability of Rights said:
“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
SOURCE: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. ••

[/indent]

You really need to read that again.

No change into the institutions or government of the said territory,

(COMMENT)

In Aug 1988, all formal institutions of government abandon the West Bank. Installing any form of government would not represent a change to an existing form of government.

No change by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power,

(COMMENT)

There was no agreement between any authorities until 1993. Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank

No change by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

You cannot change what is NOT there, to begin with.

It is also important to remember that as early as 1923 the Arab Palestinians rejected a third offer of help in the establishment self-governing institutions through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. This refusal to participate was a decision that not only remained in place through the entire Mandate Period but extended well into the 1990s.

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

There were not governing institutions in place → NOT because it was prevented → but simply because the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank rejected it.

Of course this applies to the 1948 occupied territory and the 1967 occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

In 1948, the Mandate ended and the system of government departed. The trusteeship did not object to the new body of self-governing institutions (ie. the State of Israel) established under the right of self-determination.

In 1967, the Occupation of the West Bank was a result of victorious activity while in pursuit of retreating Arab Legion Forces. Annexation did not occur until the Sovereignty "cut all ties" with the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

We are debating in circles. “Palestine” is a backward terror regime(s) and they need to be eliminated and the people who do want peace need to move to Egypt and Jordan.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ ForeverYoung436, K9Buck, et al,

Huge Mistake!

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

Absolutely.

(COMMENT)

This decision would represent a commitment on revenue of an unprescidentedand inestimatelable proportions. There are just an insanely number of latent pitfalls in the administration. And everthing becomes Israels responsibility if Annexed.

If annexed, that effectively is a self-imposed requirement to drop all impositions posed by border controls. The new citizens, because they are citizens, are free to roam anywhere. That includes the terrorists.

The Israelis cannot maintain the border controls because that would be TRULY a case of apartheid.

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ AzogtheDefiler, et al,

Morally, you cannot simply transfer the burden away (in addition to it being totally illegal).

We are debating in circles. “Palestine” is a backward terror regime(s) and they need to be eliminated and the people who do want peace need to move to Egypt and Jordan.

(COMMENT)

It is Israel's problem. And the Israelis have to solve it. It is possible and I have suggested it many times. But the Israelis must really want to change the face of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ AzogtheDefiler, et al,

Morally, you cannot simply transfer the burden away (in addition to it being totally illegal).

We are debating in circles. “Palestine” is a backward terror regime(s) and they need to be eliminated and the people who do want peace need to move to Egypt and Jordan.

(COMMENT)

It is Israel's problem. And the Israelis have to solve it. It is possible and I have suggested it many times. But the Israelis must really want to change the face of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R

How can they solve it? How would you solve it? I know how I would and it would be ugly

 

[José]

Go ahead... carpet bomb the West Bank, Gaza...

Do it and watch the rest of the world finish the job Hitler started...

 

[RoccoR]

n RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ AzogtheDefiler, et al,

As the Secretary-General said, some number of year ago (≈ 2013) → No Policy to Fight Terrorism Can Succeed without Addressing Conditions Promoting Its Spread.

No matter what Israel does:

• Do nothing.
• Nation Build (doing something).
• Create the new and necarry commercial and economic trading superstructure. (doing it right).​

A necessary start is to kick-off one, then another and then another, see Post #148 of this Thread until the entire face of West Bank has changed (assuming that our friend "P F Tinmore does not find this change in → contrivention with International Law.

How can they solve it? How would you solve it? I know how I would and it would be ugly

(COMMENT)

Programs (ex Post #148 supra) like this, we all know, will cost big bags of money (BBM). If Israel just unilaterally annexes the whole seen, the consequences are going to cause pain and BBM. If Israel simply builds infrastructure, it is going to have to maintain the new infrastructure and the border status quo. This too will mean BBM.

But if we make a nothing place like al-Ayzariyah (WB) and turn it into a huge regional central Exchange for the B2B Centers and Partnerships it will be like a putting a match to kindling.

Just one example and why,
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ AzogtheDefiler, et al,

Morally, you cannot simply transfer the burden away (in addition to it being totally illegal).

We are debating in circles. “Palestine” is a backward terror regime(s) and they need to be eliminated and the people who do want peace need to move to Egypt and Jordan.

(COMMENT)

It is Israel's problem. And the Israelis have to solve it. It is possible and I have suggested it many times. But the Israelis must really want to change the face of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Israel has created quite a problem for itself.